| Title |
Gradient cuts and extremal edges in relative depth and figure–ground perception
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13414-015-1030-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tandra Ghose, Stephen E. Palmer |
| Abstract |
Extremal edges (EEs) are borders consisting of luminance gradients along the projected edge of a partly self-occluding curved surface (e.g., a cylinder), with equiluminant contours (ELCs) that run approximately parallel to that edge. Gradient cuts (GCs) are similar luminance gradients with ELCs that intersect (are "cut" by) an edge that could be due to occlusion. EEs are strongly biased toward being seen as closer/figural surfaces (Palmer & Ghose, Psychological Science, 19(1), 77-83, 2008). Do GCs produce a complementary bias toward being seen as ground? Experiment 1 shows that, with EEs on the opposite side, GCs produce a ground bias that increases with increasing ELC angles between ELCs and the shared edge. Experiment 2 shows that, with flat surfaces on the opposite side, GCs do not produce a ground bias, suggesting that more than one factor may be operating. We suggest that two partially dissociable factors may operate for curved surfaces-ELC angle and 3-D surface convexity-that reinforce each other in the figural cues of EEs but compete with each other in GCs. Moreover, this figural bias is modulated by the presence of EEs and GCs, as specified by the ELC angle between ELCs and the shared contour. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 30% |
| Researcher | 3 | 30% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 1 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 5 | 50% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 20% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 10% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2016.
All research outputs
#16,287,458
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#848
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,021
of 394,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#31
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 394,738 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.